Osamu Aoki wrote:
> Thanks for saving lost soul.
>
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 12:58:28AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>This clause is universally interpreted to mean that the permission is
>>granted and you don't need to pay a fee to get that permission; in other
>>words, "for any purpose and without fee is granted" is equivalent to
>>"for any purposes is granted without fee". A quick google over the
>>debian-legal archives shows that this issue has been discussed and
>>resolved as early as 1999, and that it nevertheless comes up numerous
>>times after that.
>
> Hmmm. I see. Good explanation, thanks. I also found:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/1999/08/msg00049.html
>
> Good old BSD license variants... Further check dropped me to:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/02/msg00102.html
>
> This was good reference. So this license in _process.py is GPL
> incompatible as is. subprocess.py one is GPL compatible.
I don't see how those messages give you the impression that this license
is not GPL-compatible. The license is in fact a BSD license, sans
advertising clause, and is thus GPL-compatible.
- Josh Triplett